ORDER : 1. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought the following prayers: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing the notification bearing No.5607/2000-2001 dated 19-01-2013 produced at Annexure-E as the same is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and also is discriminatory. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 11-02-2014 produced at Annexure-K and consider the cases of the petitioners for stepping up of their pay in the cadre of Assistant Lineman above that of the Junior Meter Readers pay scales at least 2 stages higher having regard additional educational qualification prescribed for them ever since the date of their appointment and grant them all the consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. And (c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The petitioners were all applicants in a 2nd recruitment process initiated by the respondent/KPTCL and other ESCOMS to the post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioners were all recruited through five notifications issued from the year 1998 to 2008. It appears that on 26-03-2007 the KPTCL issued a notification amending the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations by creating a new cadre – Junior Meter Reader. Educational qualification prescribed for the said post in terms of the said amendment was SSLC. It further transpires that KPTCL prescribed to the said post a higher pay scale to that of the petitioners which according to the petitioners is not in consonance with the educational qualification possessed. 3. The petitioners’ claim to be in possession of higher qualification and doing more onerous and strenuous job than that of the Junior Meter Reader, which post was created on 26.03.2007 but allege that Junior Meter Reader is given higher pay scale than that of the petitioners despite doing a desk job. The grievance of the petitioners as pleaded are as follows:- “(a) The minimum qualification prescribed to the post of Assistant Linemen is SSLC and 2 years ITI or 3 years ITC Certificate. The grievance of the petitioners as pleaded are as follows:- “(a) The minimum qualification prescribed to the post of Assistant Linemen is SSLC and 2 years ITI or 3 years ITC Certificate. Whereas, the educational qualification prescribed to the post of Junior Meter Reader is only SSLC. (b) The difference in pay scale in the cadre of Assistant Linemen with SSLC+ITI/ITC qualification is Rs.7950-150-8100-190-9050-240-10250-300-11750-360-16790 whereas the pay scale prescribed to the post of Junior Meter Reader with only SLC qualification is Rs.8480-190-9050-240-10250-300-11750-360-13910-420-16850-510-18890-570-20600. (c) A candidate who is appointed under fortuitous circumstances is in a better advantageous position with lesser educational qualification over the educationally better qualified Assistant Lineman in respect of pay and in respect of promotional avenues. (d) 975 Junior Meter Readers get 20% of the vacancies in the cadre of Meter Reader, Operator and Overseer numbering 4827 vacancies, whereas 10,177 Lineman get only 30% of the vacancies and the Assistant Lineman have to get promoted to the post of Lineman and Mechanic Grade-II and wait for several years. Hence, Junior Meter Readers are in an advantageous position compared to the Lineman cadre which is the basic feeder cadre to the post of Meter Reader and other equivalent posts. (e) An Assistant Lineman is required to earn 2 promotions to go to the cadre of Meter Reader, whereas Junior Meter Reader get immediate promotion on completion of 4 years of service. An Assistant Lineman has to wait for more than a year to get a promotion to the post of Lineman depending on the vacancies. 4. Heard Sri. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1; Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4; Sri Prashanth T. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri M. Narayana Bhat would submit that despite cadres of both the petitioners and Junior Meter Readers being different in terms of the Rules, they are persons who are less qualified as they hold the qualification of SSLC whereas the petitioners are holders of the qualification of SSLC+ITI/ITC and placed in a pay scale of Rs.7950-16790 and Junior Meter Readers are placed in a pay scale of Rs.8480-20600. It is his case that such disparity has resulted in gross injustice to Assistant Linemen – petitioners. 6. It is his case that such disparity has resulted in gross injustice to Assistant Linemen – petitioners. 6. The further grievance is that Junior Meter Reader despite being only 975 in number get 20% of the vacancies for promotion to the post of Meter Reader, whereas Assistant Linemen despite being 10,177 in number get only 30% of vacancies and Assistant Linemen is required to earn two promotions to go to the cadre of Meter Reader wherein Junior Meter Reader would get promotion on completion of 4 years to the cadre of Meter Reader. Broadly speaking the learned counsel would allege violation of Article 14. 7. On the other hand, Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel appearing for KPTCL would submit that it is for the employer to decide as to what post should carry a particular pay scale and avenues of promotion to the said post. It is his contention that since large number of people are working in the cadre of Assistant Lineman, promotional avenue is restricted to 30% which would be equivalent to that of Junior Meter Reader which is at 20% for promotion to the cadre of Meter Reader. He would submit that petitioners cannot raise a challenge to the pay scale or avenues of promotion as long as there is one stage of avenue available to the petitioners as well. He would further submit that under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court should not interfere with the policy of recruitment or promotion or fixation of pay scales according to the nature of work performed. He would further submit that the petitioners have also sought a prayer for consideration of their representation dated 11-02-2014, which the respondent/KPTCL would consider in accordance with law, if any of the grievance submitted by the petitioners in the said representation is redressable. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged by the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Before embarking upon consideration of submissions made by the petitioners, it is germane to notice the line of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to judicial review concerning fixation of qualification, pay scale or manner of promotions. The Apex Court in the case of P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL –reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 has held as follows:- “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. The Apex Court in the case of P.U. JOSHI v. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL –reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 has held as follows:- “10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” (emphasis supplied) Subsequently a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v. DAYANAND –reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1 has held as follows: “59. The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.” (emphasis supplied) Again the Apex Court in the case of T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD v. T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD THOZHILALAR AYKKIYA SANGAM – reported in (2008) 3 SCC 359 has held as follows:- “8. Therefore, channel of promotions for these Helpers was in technical side. It was submitted that this was a policy decision taken by the Board in pursuance of the Office Order dated 23-5-1986 on recommendations of the Government. Henceforth the post of Helper i.e. Fitter, Turner, Machinist, etc. will be recruited out of the persons who possess NTC or NAC awarded by the National Council for Training and Vocational Trade. Consequent to this resolution of the Board the T.N. Service Regulations were amended and Note 3 was inserted in those Regulations. Therefore, after the insertion of Note 3 the criteria for selection for the post of Helper is that the incumbent should have NTC or NAC issued by the National Council for Training and Vocational Trade and it was also clearly stipulated in the Resolution of the Board dated 23-5-1986 that “the candidates holding NTC/NAC recruited as Helpers shall not be eligible for internal selection to the post of Junior Assistant and Typist including Steno-Typists”. This resolution of the Board was incorporated in the Regulations in the same terms. This resolution of the Board was incorporated in the Regulations in the same terms. Note 3 reads as under: “National Trade Certificate / National Apprentice-ship Certificate candidates recruited as Helpers shall not be eligible for internal selection to the posts of Junior Assistants and Typists including Steno-Typists.” 9. Therefore, this is a matter of policy decision taken by the Board that henceforth the persons holding NTC/NAC appointed as Helpers will have the channel of promotion to the technical post and not to the administrative post. It is true that prior to 1986 the persons who were appointed as Helpers were also appointed as Junior Assistants and Technicians in the office. After the decision taken by the Board, Helpers have been appointed who only possess NTC/NAC. The Board has now channelised the promotions of these persons in the category of technical posts and not in the administrative posts. 11. In this connection, our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191] and this Court has very categorically stated that:(SCC p. 639, para 10) “ 10. … There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” (emphasis supplied) Elaborating interference by Constitutional Courts insofar as rule making power of the Appointing Authority, the Apex Court in the case of CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. USHA KHETERPAL WAIE – reported in (2011) 9 SCC 645 has held as follows: “22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. [ (1990) 1 SCC 288 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 76] and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632: 2003 SCC (L&S) 191]. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable.” (emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, again reiterating the very view and elaborating the same as in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT v. ARVINDKUMAR T.TIWARI – reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 has held as follows: “10. The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score for selection, than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for this purpose to the extent that the same may be lower than the ones fixed by the statute. In a particular case, where it is so required, relaxation of even educational qualification(s) may be permissible, provided that the rules empower the authority to relax such eligibility in general, or with regard to an individual case or class of cases of undue hardship. However, the said power should be exercised for justifiable reasons and it must not be exercised arbitrarily, only to favour an individual. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made by the State Government/authority is conferred upon the Government/authority to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or, is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons or, where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. The power to relax the recruitment rules or any other rule made by the State Government/authority is conferred upon the Government/authority to meet any emergent situation where injustice might have been caused or, is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons or, where the working of the said rules might have become impossible. (Vide State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Mar-waha [ (1974) 3 SCC 220 :1973 SCC (L&S) 488: AIR 1973 SC 2216 ], J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana [ (1990) 2 SCC 189 :1990 SCC (L&S) 218:(1990) 12 ATC 745] and Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J&K [ (1998) 4 SCC 179 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1055] .). 11. The courts and tribunal do not have the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention thereof. In State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir [ (1998) 6 SCC 165 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1459], this Court while dealing with a similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31) “31. … The courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution.” 12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved by the statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”. (Vide State of J&K v. Shiv Ram Sharma [ (1999) 3 SCC 653 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 801: AIR 1999 SC 2012 ] and Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2000) 8 SCC 633 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 62].” (emphasis supplied) One common factor that runs through the stream of all the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as afore-extracted, is the judgment in the case of P.U.Joshi (supra) which is reiterated time and again. Therefore, facts obtaining in the case at hand will have to be considered on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi. 10. The Apex Court, has in unequivocal terms, directed that questions relating to conditions of service including avenues of promotions, criteria to be fulfilled on such promotion, method of recruitment, eligibility criteria for promotion, pay scale attached to the post are all in the domain of policy of the employer, except in a case where the policy is so arbitrary that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution and without much ado, judicial interference in such cases is not called for. The Apex Court would further direct in the said case that addition or removal of qualification, abolition of posts, creation of posts, reconstitution and re-structure of posts would all be within the domain of policy. This view of the Apex Court is further reiterated in the judgment hereinabove. 11. The grievance of petitioners is that minimum qualification prescribed for Assistant Lineman and that of Junior Meter Reader are entirely different. This Court would not and cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the employer to prescribe qualification that is needed for a particular post depending upon the nature of duties that the employer wants from the hands of the personnel who get appointed to such posts. This Court would not and cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the employer to prescribe qualification that is needed for a particular post depending upon the nature of duties that the employer wants from the hands of the personnel who get appointed to such posts. This Court would not pronounce on the grievance of the petitioners that their qualification for the post of Assistant Lineman is higher than that of Junior Meter Reader, both of which, form feeder cadre for promotion to the cadre of Lineman. 12. The next grievance is that Assistant Lineman though having a qualification of SSLC plus ITI is placed in a lower pay scale and Junior Meter Reader who is required to possess a qualification of SSLC is placed in a higher pay scale. Here again, appointments to both the posts are different. Both the posts may be feeder cadres to the post of Lineman which would not give a right to the petitioners to contend that employees belonging to two different cadres cannot have two different pay scales. If both the petitioners and others who are appointed to a particular cadre have different pay scales then the contention of the petitioners would become acceptable, not in the manner it is now alleged. The petitioners entered the cadre of Assistant Lineman on the strength of various notifications by direct recruitment. Junior Meter Readers have entered the cadre by different notification pursuant to an amendment for creation of the post of Junior Meter Reader on 26-03-2007. The qualification and percentage of vacancies for promotion vary by the impugned notification. Even then the petitioners, in my considered view, do not have any right to contend that the pay scale of a particular cadre should not be higher than their cadre. 13. The effect of allowing the prayer of the petitioners would be to non-suit several personnel of the KPTCL working and getting a particular pay scale in the cadre of Junior Meter Reader. Any variance in the pay scale of Junior Meter Reader on acceptance of the prayer of the petitioners would result in civil consequences upon those Junior Meter Readers who are not even parties to the writ petition. Hence, the grievance of the petitioners with regard to pay scale is unacceptable. 14. Any variance in the pay scale of Junior Meter Reader on acceptance of the prayer of the petitioners would result in civil consequences upon those Junior Meter Readers who are not even parties to the writ petition. Hence, the grievance of the petitioners with regard to pay scale is unacceptable. 14. The next grievance of the petitioners that a fortuitous appointment on compassionate grounds being made to several meter readers being in more advantageous position despite lesser educational qualification is also unacceptable, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi. Further, the petitioners contend that Junior Meter Readers get 20% of vacancies for promotion to the post of Meter Reader, Operator and Overseaor whose cadre strength is 4827 whereas for a cadre of 10177 Assistant Lineman, the petitioners get only 30% of the vacancies as promotional avenue to the post of Lineman from the cadre of Assistant Lineman, as it is divided among other cadres to be the feeder cadre to the post of Lineman. It is also not in dispute that petitioners now are all promoted and are working in the cadre of Lineman. This again is a matter of policy of the employer with regard to structuring or re-structuring of the cadre and determination of particular percentage of vacancies for promotional avenue. 15. The policy, in my opinion, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The structuring of the cadre is done in accordance with the needs of the post, which cannot be termed to be arbitrary only because the cadre of the petitioners is given 30% of the vacancies as promotional avenue and the cadre of Junior Meter Reader which is altogether a separate cadre is given 20% of the vacancies for promotion to the post of Lineman. 16. The further grievance of the petitioners is that Assistant Lineman is required to earn two promotions to enter the cadre of Lineman whereas, Junior Meter Reader enters the cadre of Meter Reader/Lineman within four years of completion of service in the cadre of Junior Meter Reader. It is the structuring of the cadre that is made as there are avenues of promotion to the post of Lineman viz., Assistant Lineman, Mechanic Grade-II and Junior Meter Reader. The petitioners herein again cannot have any grievance with regard to structuring of the cadre. It is the structuring of the cadre that is made as there are avenues of promotion to the post of Lineman viz., Assistant Lineman, Mechanic Grade-II and Junior Meter Reader. The petitioners herein again cannot have any grievance with regard to structuring of the cadre. Moreover, it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of the employer in structuring or re-structuring its cadre for its needs. Therefore, none of the grievances complained of by the petitioners’ sound acceptance. The petitioners’ grievances remain grievances and not a right that is taken away for judicial interference of the nature of the case that is brought before this Court. 17. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are all inapplicable to the facts of the case at hand, as every one of them deal with arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the State action and further hold that reasons must exist to justify such action at the hands of the State. Therefore, none of the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are considered in the light of the fact that they are rendered on a totally different set of facts and circumstances. The judgments quoted supra in my considered view, cover the case at hand on all fours. 18. With regard to the other prayer that is sought in the writ petition for a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation for stepping up of their pay in the cadre of Assistant Lineman either on par with Junior Meter Reader or above Junior Meter Reader by two scales owing to their educational qualification is concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondent/KPTCL has not considered the representation on the ground that the writ petition is pending consideration at the hands of this Court. Therefore, KPTCL is at liberty to consider the representation dated 11-02-2014 in accordance with law. Except the aforesaid observations none of the grounds urged sound acceptance. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition, lacks merit and is dismissed. 20. No costs.